Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the scope of returned data and the one-year framing, but says nothing about what happens when no filing exists for the requested year or how the data is structured.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data comes back.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned data categories, and the year parameter covers the temporal scope. What's missing is any indication of the return shape (flat vs. per-period breakdown) and behavior when the requested year has no filing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the year default and the company-number format. The description only reinforces the one-accounting-year scope, which is baseline-level added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (get) plus a precise resource (employment averages, headcounts, FTE, entries/exits, hours, personnel costs) scoped to one accounting year. The data set is clearly distinct from siblings like get_financials or get_shareholders, though the description never explicitly states that separation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The enumerated data fields imply the tool is the one to call when employment/personnel statistics are needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling tool for related data. Usage is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.